The Karnataka High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings against an astrologer and a woman's husband in a case involving her alleged molestation.

The court rejected the petitions filed by Deepa Darshan H P (husband) and Mohandas alias Shivaramu (astrologer). The mentioned two sought quashing of the charges against them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The sections include - Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment), and 508 (inducing person to believe that he will be rendered an object of the Divine displeasure), read with 34.

The case centres around accusations that the astrologer, under the guise of performing a 'puja' to "correct" the woman's 'kundali' (horoscope), inappropriately touched her. The woman's husband, who had brought her to the astrologer, was accused of threatening her not to disclose the incident.

The husband argued that a prior complaint had been filed against him in 2018 under Section 498A of the IPC and that the current complaint, filed in 2019, was impermissible as it related to similar allegations.

He also claimed that since the complainant had been living separately since 2018, there was no basis for the new complaint. Additionally, he pointed out that a petition for dissolution of marriage was pending in the Family Court here.

However, the complainant's counsel argued that the allegations in the current case were distinct from those in the previous one.

The astrologer, accused number two, was alleged to have molested the complainant under the pretext of performing a ritual, while the husband allegedly did nothing to stop him and even warned the complainant against resisting.

The court noted that the complainant had made specific allegations about incidents of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC that took place between May 2014 and February 2015.

The astrologer was accused of inappropriately touching the complainant during this period, with the husband's complicity. Given the seriousness of the charges, the court ruled that the criminal proceedings could not be quashed.

Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, presiding over the case, emphasised that the nature and gravity of the allegations warranted the continuation of the legal process against both accused.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.